>As I say, I don't follow Rawls. And I reject Habermas for similar reasons:
>I don't think ideal agreements abstracted from actual conflicts can
>motivate us as we are, stuck in our actual conflicts, and if they cannot
>motivate, they run afoul of ought implies can.
he IS talking about "practical argumentation dealing with reasons why specific actors in specific situations ought to choose specific strategies of action over others." none of it makes sense, otherwise. valid norms are morally binding because of their intimate connection with processes of social interaction and communication out of which one cannot easily (or even rationally) choose to step (1983: 109). DE is a corollary to TCA, not the whole of it.
H is not interested in abstracting anyone out of our actual conflicts. i don't understand why on earth anyone imagines that he does other than that they heard or read it somewhere other than in H.
"moral issues are never raised for their own sake; people raise them seeking a guide for action."
"Discourses take place in particular social contexts and are subject to the limitations of time and space. their participants are not Kant's intelligible characters but real human beings driven by other motives in addition to the motive of the search for the truth."